About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN2 109
LANGUAGE
English 109
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 109 (some duplicates have been removed)
think a big part of it is that you need to understand that social change -- you don't wake up overnight and think i'm going to change the world. just like you said you want to or you make it other than a class project. you have to realize -- dream big for sure. i'm sorry that i didn't say you can't save the world and that's not going to happen overnight. social change does not come overnight but it does come incrementally and it comes by even having good dialogs like this today and i know it sounds cheesy but that's the first step people can realize because when you get those first jobs i can only speak only about washington-oriented jobs you may have graduated from the best universities or been the top of your class or feel that you really have a high aptitude and high grasp of issues but when you get there and if you're doing some remedial work you might feel downtrodden and why am i not talking to the press right now about why we need to have cap-and-trade legislation. realize the change will come incrementally both for the issues and they will come incrementally for your careers but
in the country. t we did too big surveys of these folks. what i found fascinating as if began to look through theegan results of the service, the t difference in how people were how pe responding to questions aboutop opportunity and access as anitya function of age or asra generations. would go into this a little bit later, but a short story is s those people who were under 40 and you have a system that i have organized where i call these people generations, the people under 40 responded quitei differently to those who were over 40 in terms of how muchm discrimination date received in the workplace and how much ofp today's date of were available for them personally. just in terms of how difficult it was to make it in americanci, society. and so once i saw this interesting generational break out in the data we went back w ahead of a small group ofarchers researchers and conducted overdu 130 follow-up interviews just in the people in the survey in addition to over 100 interviewst conducted generally from the book.t so it was somewhat different methodology. but change, the country changed in som
professor with the big ears and a funny name. now all bets are off. obama just might be willing to be the next president of the united states. it would be the capstone of an amazing rise for a politician whose charisma and personal story. the harvard educated has breezed life into the democratic party. at the heart of obama is his personality and presence. part preacher and professor and part movie star. his charisma seems effortless, his charm and afterthought. who is that guy? he certainly got it. he describes obama as the third african-american since reconstruction to serve in the senate. he delivered the keynote address at the 2004 national convention and won a grammy for the audio version of his memoir and he said he need look no farther than his desk in the senate chamber to be reminded of the last politician who embody the hopes of a generation, designed by its previous occupant including bobby kennedy. with that here we are today. conservatives, as we all know as late as last week, conservatives are questioning whether he was born, the degree to which progressives who ar
pollution. the big oil and energy companies lobby to prevent reforms. young people can see the possibility of a clean energy future, and you need to fight for it. campus progress -- yeah. campus progress and our partners have seen another example this year of cynical power. for-profit colleges. there's overwhelming evidence that the schools are abusing taxpayer money with high price, low quality programs that lead many students deep in debt, their lives nearly ruined. for-profit colleges have about 10% of the college students, 25% of federal financial aid, and almost half of the loan defaults in this country. their reckless behavior risks a new subprime debt crisis, yet corporations that run these schools have spent millions trying to avoid accountability. it's disturbing to see who is lobbying for the special interests and their indefensible decision figure find some of them call themselves progressive and have worked for progressive administrations and causes but now they use their skills in connection to advance positions that are anything but progressive. i think that is a shame. a 22
.i. joe," the lakers and the celtics in the championship. apple wuss big, then it -- was big, then it went away for a while, then it was back again. so it should be obvious that the 1980s is back, and for various reasons i argue in the book, it is back. and i don't think it's just because of the nostalgia factor although that's certainly a factor. also there's some coincidences. i had mentioned on my radio show a couple days ago that the weird coincidence, although you may see it not just as a coincidence, that 25 years ago almost to the exact week and, certainly, to the exact month the united states military was bombing libya, and the world was wrapped with the detention about a nuclear meltdown at chernobyl. those two things happened almost exactly 25 years ago to the month. so as much of this is pop culture, some of it is very, very real. and what i argue in the book is that the popular culture of the 1980s, the iconography of the 1980s in many ways has inspired the way we hook at real world -- look at real world events and how real world, i guess you would call them actors, behave toda
. it would have three big teaches and, again, the details of these -- it would have three big features, and again the details would be outlays need to equal revenues. that is the fundamental definition of a balance. you don't run deficits. you make sure that you spend no more than you take n the sieged thing that some of us feel strongly about and i'm one of them, we ought to limit spending as a percentage of our economy so that the government doesn't keep growing at the expense of the private sector, which is exactly what happens when the government occupies too large a segment of our economy. and finally, we've advocated that we not create a mechanism that simply guarantees big tax increases in order to balance the budget and to do that we would like -- and we have included a supermajority requirement to raise taxes. so that a simple majority wouldn't be enough. it would require a supermajority, which would only occur presumably in truly extraordinary circumstances. see, i believe very strongly that we can have strong economic growth and the job creation that we need. but to get ther
, the social security benefits drop 22%. that's a big hit for folks that are living on social security. so what can we do today, 25 years in advance, what small thing can we do today to social security which will build up the solvency and life of social security for even more years? that's a -- i think that's an honest challenge and we should view it as an honest challenge. not to eliminate social security but to say to the generation of younger workers in america, it's going to be there and you'll be darn lucky that it is there because a lot of seniors today can tell you the story of their lives paying into social security. they now receive the benefits. but what happened to their other plans for retirement? well, that little 401(k), that ira, that s.e.p. plan took a hit a few years ago, lost about 30% of its value. and for many americans with pension plans where their work, some of those companies went out of business and walked away from those pension obligations. social security has been there. we want it to be there in the future. so we can find ways to strengthen social security and give
rage came out which the big magazine excerpt came out of 93 and the book came out in 94. not long after rage came out you saw changes in corporate america. you saw a small but interesting group begin to rise. you saw richard carson became the head of time warner and the head of american express. you saw change in the calculus. of course with the recent presidential election you saw something that many people of many colors felt never happened at least in our lifetime which was the election of a president identified as african-american. the other thing that happened which is something that i found interesting is in the years since that book came out a new generation has come along so a lot of the voices represented in rage are different from the voice is represented in "the end of anger". it is not just a couple words about that. even though i've settled 100 interviews for rage i did more for this book. in addition to interviews a conducted a couple surveys. i did a survey of the black alumni of harvard business school. 74 questions. and also survey of graduates called the better chance
of this, you know we also did a big move to prices and we have some prices that are happening now that people are doing, some amazing things. if we can think outside the box rather than governmental programs thinking about what we should do. we were trying to harness the experience of a broader set of americans to figure out how to accomplish goals and other things. and so while the inherently governmental piece is hard and in our case, we are trying to focus nasa not on the low earth orbit parts of it but the harder stuff. you know i think it is really exciting. there is one other rationale for why we do some of these things and i look separately at the space station at a little different rationale. one of the things that i have not appreciated when i was serving in the clinton administration, we went through hard choices in bringing the russians to the table. but when communication suddenly shut down when there was a coup in moscow effectively and all the communications channels had broken down, what actually was amazing that the communication channels that have been built aroun
it was no big deal. as she walked into the clinic something odd happened to another girl cautioned her and said all babies want to be born. james ignored or. what did this young woman no? your baby has a hard. jane in order again. your baby has fingernails. now, that was odd. this should occur. she walked into the abortion clinic and she sat down. she glanced around and she couldn't help but notice that everyone is playing with their fingernails. tapping them on the tables, chewing on them and she thought i have a life growing inside of me and she walked out of the abortion clinic and that was the end of the story. how many of you remember the statistic i gave you about a minute and a half ago? how many of you remember what prompted jane to walk out of the abortion clinic? everybody remembers the fingernails. and i promise you we cannot even those who your remembered the statistic, 1,466,000, those who remember the forgotten assist a six and would have remembered the finger nails. narratives matter. we have fought into the trap of thinking that intellectual argument tends to trump emotion. you
are no longer serious about solving big problems. and that was sort of the subject of my first book in 2007 looking ahead to the 2008 presidential race. and the big issues in education, and health care, and energy, the environment and jobs, and so on, and i think that you can really see that playing out in washington right now as we have this debate about the budget. and that this budget debate in some ways has become about paul ryan and his plan and his thinking of the budget. but that the idea that we as a nation can all agree that there is one guy in washington talking seriously about the budget is an indictment of everyone else in congress who is not, that we're sort of at this point where you want to talk about the budget? there's one guy is taking this really seriously. he's the one who's thinking about how to solve the budget problem. these are huge issues. generational issues that are going to have to be solved one way or another. and the fact that there's not a larger debate that involves more people on both sides of the aisle i think is a stunning indictment of where we are in a p
of the big argument in washington, d.c. right now is allegedly over raising the debt limit, but what's really going on is competing plans about budget cutting which amounts essentially to dieses investment. given the economic realities, can you just outline for us the differences that we can expect to result from on the one hand investment in the economy if the politicians were willing to do something like that, or on the other hand, budget cutting that they're talking about so much. >> well, thank you, bob. i want to start in my answering the question where rich led off that, you know, this is a choice. the unemployment that we have in front of us is something that policymakers can do something about, and as the economist up here on the panel, i want to leave the audience with one thing which is that if we do -- what we do that is good for workers in this economy will also be good for the economy overall so often here in washington, and that's the way the deficit conversations are going, it's as hoe there's this big difference we need to deal with the deficit because that's good for the econ
big. i am sorry about the attention span of some members of congress but they could wait for the movie. maybe it will be coming forward. we are dealing with an interconnected system. there was a central theme. by sources of liquidity outside the banking system and increased information technology people in the financial industry have figured out a way to engage in lending while appearing to escape the burden of risk. they appeared to -- this didn't go away. accumulated elsewhere in the system and exploded on all of us. what we have done is basically make people be responsible for the risk and one important issue that are dealt with with some friends on the liberal side is a question of risk retention. i would urge people to look at michael lewis's book the big short. when people make loans and have no responsibility whether or not they are repaid they will not be as prudent. that is a market incentive. the alternative is oh no, the regulators will tell you what is good and what isn't. we are on the market side here. i don't want to depend on regulators to look at all of these loans. th
. and although i had seen her once before, the big time i saw her when i had the horseback riding accident and i broke my back and i was unconscious for a while and i was laid up for a little bit but as a kid fortunately, i healed and i'm moving around great. part of overcoming that is not believing the doctors when they said you should be glad you can walk. you're lucky you're not dead. well, yeah, sure but i wanted to do more and we kept going finally i had to go to a chiropractor to find somebody that said, okay, maybe exercise is okay. maybe you can try jogging, yeah, maybe you can do stuff to strengthen your back. boy, i latched onto that and i was into cheerleading and dancing and i felt great and i got my body back, just as you start to feel good life has a opportunity to slap you back down. i had some fun times, you know, cheerleading, did the tractor queen thing. i'm sure there's not a lot of people out there that would admit they were tractor queen if they ever were. i would have rather driven the tractor -- tractor queen, i'm the queen of the tractor nowadays they would probably let y
dreams in which i had these. guide he came and helped me. and although i've seen her once before, the big time i saw her was when i had the first tech writing accident in the my back and was unconscious for a while. as a kid, for chile part of overcoming out with not believing the doctors and a side you should be glad you can walk. you are lucky you weren't dead. oh yeah, sure, but i wanted to do more. we kept going. finally had to go to the chiropractor to find somebody that said maybe exercise is okay. maybe you can try jogging. yeah, maybe you could use that to strength in your back. i latched onto god and that is when i got into dance team chemistry living in the which an escape --a physical escape. i felt great. i got my body back. and then just as you start to feel good, life has a tendency sometimes to thought you back down. it is happening to me. i had some fun times, cheerleading, i'm sure there's not a lot of people out there i would even admit that they were trying to clean if they [laughter] while to us. and you know what, i would have rather two minute track here. i thought a
a big deal, $4 trillion, or whether we're going to have a smaller deal of $2 trillion, but the real issue is whether or not we're going to have a fair deal, a deficit-reduction package which represents the interests of working people and the vast majority of our people or whether we're going to have a deficit reductio-reduction packh ends up reflecting the needs of the wealthiest people in this country who are do phenomenally well and the largest corporations in this country who, in many instances, are making record-breaking profits. that's really what the debate is about. now, the republican position on deficit reduction has been extremely clear and is consistent with their right-wing ideology. despite the fact that our current deficit crisis has been caused by two wars unpaid for, huge tax breaks that have gone to the wealthiest people in this country, and a recession caused by the deregulation of wall street and the lack of revenue coming in as a result of that recession. our republican friends are adamant that while the richest people in this country are becoming much richer, wh
and the one across the capitol, could make a big difference in the outcome of our future by cutting specific programs this week and next week. that's one rare thing you never hear in washington. everybody says you need to cut. when it gets down to talk about what you cut, nobody wants to come up with any cogent ideas because they don't want to take the political heat, because everybody program, no matter how well-intended and how inefficient, has those people who are going to fight for that program because there's money coming into the coffers for somebody. the other point that i would make is the reason we're anxious and the reason we're worried is that we've abandoned the very principles that our founders gave us that would keep us healthy. and that was the constitution and its enumerated powers section, which spells out very succinctly what was our responsibility and what was the states' responsibility. and so we have whole departments. one, for example, would be the department of education. that thomas jefferson said if you ever had the federal government doing anything on education, you
court term began, two of the big lens or person in the cases come if you protest a chemist vendor versus phelps in the videogame case from which ended at being caught brown v. entertainment software association. both of those cases brought with them the chance to explore first amendment issues in the internet era and they ended up really not doing that at all. the funeral case had a component to it involving an online screed against their parents of corporal snyder, which the court completely declined to address it all and instead look at it as a type of dinner plates. the videogame case again had the potential of looking at whether this new medium has something different than the other new media that arose over the centuries, but instead decided it did not impose either unanimous word you unanimous holdings getting to that resold. we have as well i suppose we should be grateful for arizona's contribution to the supreme court docket with the tuition tax credit case in the clean elections case which was perhaps again i say the clean elections case the perhaps most predictable outcome, the
that of the assistant attorney general for the antitrust christine varney is stepping down and there's a big merger in the at&t t-mobile merger that needs a thorough and expeditious review, and i would hope that her stepping down doesn't believe that. i think we could get that done by the end of the year in a fare, faeroe manor. but i have been in a dialogue with chairman genachowski about making sure that we move as quickly as we can on the merger review process as there are a lot of problems with how the commission under both republicans and democrats have conducted themselves in terms of taking too long or imposing conditions that have absolutely nothing to do with the substance of the merger itself. so congress could look at it and there could be a statutory provision certainly, but the best thing to do would be to honor its own 180 dÉjÀ clock. >> just to add something we from time to time work with the fcc on the merger views and from our perspective, you don't deserve a particular outcome, but to do preserve a sort of speedy resolution. sometimes it takes longer with documents but that's wh
was to take up big visas and assemble them in space was more and any year, and one year of space station construction was going to be more e. l. d. hours then had them witnessed by all a faring nations together. it exceeded it in one year. so there was really serious questions about the feasibility of space station freedom as design. the national academy of sciences again, the question is for scientific use of the space station. in fact there were explicit critical coming out of the space station particularly when some of the first trade-off decisions were made a large centrifuge that was going to allow the creation of all kinds of life science experiments. they call the marginal. we have the beginning of unhappy international partners, who had gleefully signed up to be part of the space station freedom program but as that program began to evolve and the interactions and the decisions they realize there were less partners and subcontractors and there was real unhappiness being expressed about that. and the planetary program and the great observatory programs have been put on hold for the
is not the first place that would come to mind to have a big ice skating right. among other reasons, because it nothing ever freezes there. but this is what we did last year, and we made it into the guinness book of world records. so you ask yourself, ask this question a couple of years ago, why in the world do we do this? and he came up with a sort of intelligent answer. because this is the kind of competition we like. we are the only ones competing. [laughter] you can't lose if you're in the competition for the world's biggest because nobody else is doing it. nobody else is crazy enough to do this stuff, just in time or money on a. not going to happen. and so, we love that kind of competition. the problem of course is that that version to competition extends antitrust policy, what extent of the type of monopolies we have, would've extended the type of concentration of power we have. then it gets complicated. then things don't work anymore. and so i going to the same story about slim which i think is most respectful but also somewhat critical, not of his personality or persona, but the situ
this hearing is a big step in that direction. i thank our witnesses for addressing these concerns. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady ms. matsui. >> i would like to thank the distinguished panelists for being with us this morning. nice to see you all on this important issue. americans rely on a variety of services for a number of activities including social networking and navigation and mapping services among many others. as we all know in today's economy information is everything to everyone. we also know technology changes continuously every day. what is new today will not be new tomorrow. we must continue to encourage american innovation and foster growth and development of the next generation technologies. it is also essential we properly protect private and personal information of consumers particularly our young people. privacy policy and disclosure should be clear and transparent. we should also understand the scope of information being collected and what it is being used for and length of time it is being retained and its security. ultimately meaningful privacy safeguards should be
]. >> that is affirmative, atlantis. >> copy. >> one of the other big-ticket items for atlantis's crew will be the deployment of the dish-shaped ku band antenna over the starboard, forward sill of the payload bay. >> have we missed anything? >> okay. we'll take a look. >> chris ferguson asking capcom barry wilmore to make sure the team here is looking over their shoulders to make sure they don't miss anything in the post-insertion checklist. again the ku band antenna will be deployed soon. once the payload bay doors are open, that will enable a high data rate telemetry and down link television capability from the shuttle. >> atlantis, block three does look good to us. nice work. [no audio] [no audio] >> the electrical systems officer here in mission control reports that the crew has begun the process of turning on the lights in the payload bay. that in advance of the operation of the systems by rex walheim and chris ferguson to actually open the doors, deploy the radiators, and setting the stage for a go for on-orbit operations. atlantis crossing the pacific at an altitude of 143 by 97
they did it come after they lived up to their end of the bargain. you know, these big oil companies, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, defense spending, wall street banks, they are getting great big everything else, and i don't see the job creation. you know, unemployment is obviously out of control now even from what the reporting, it's not to mention the fact that, you know, they are only counting the people that are actively seeking employment and not the people that have given up all hope. it's like the voters in this country don't even seem to count any more. if you had cathy mcmorris rogers mention reform in the way we spend money on, you know, to paraphrase. we need reform and the election campaigns. you know, where are these candidates getting their money? and how much do they get? because those are the people that seem to be represented. it's like the voters aren't represented any more. >> thanks for the views. one more call police and from washington on the democrats' line. >> caller: hi, how're you doing. i am calling about the fact that under this present plan that t
in transforming themselves, she's one of the big reasons why. please help me in welcoming to the stage, liz schuller. [applause] >> thank you. all right. thank you, barry, for the introduction. and i'd like to think raj for raising the bar. thanks a lot for the rest of us and not those creative messaging tools that we all need to address inequality. i wish i would have heard her before my speech. so why am i here as part of this panel? the whole point of what i want to talk to you today is the power of collective action and how it could counter the rise in inequality and how unions fit into that picture. now, when i think about inequality, especially, as of late, i think about those teachers in wisconsin, construction workers in ohio, nurses in new hampshire, who have been locked out and denied their basic rights to collective bargaining. we've seen what it looks like the state capital in wisconsin and we show you now what's happening in office buildings all across this country. ♪ >> here's to america's workers. when the economy was down, they sacrificed. during tough times when executive
for freed african-americans who were living in the washington area. and they would make a big effort to impress lincoln. they would dress in their finest clothes. the men often wearing civil war uniforms both the gray and the blue they had gotten from battlefields and they would line up and sing spirituals and entertain him with these spirituals and he was so moved to tears often that a lot of the people often thought that this deepened his commitment to abolition and to emancipation. just being in the presence of the african-americans who had been slaves and talking to them but especially what became sort of quasi religious ceremonies that he was the center of. and he was, of course, sort of a semi religious figure among many freed slaves in those days. >> host: what strikes me when you go through all the presidents and, of course, you mentioned them all is isolation. you have a lincoln and you have an andrew johnson who were pretty much indifferent. to the flight of people of african descent. >> guest: yes. >> host: pretty -- the other is a class-based oscillation because you had p
and a big part of this community. i was grateful to see him here today before i turn over to arianna who i think is an expert on journalism and editorial, i want to go through a few points of real big things that we're betting on as a company, not talk about aol but let's talk about the things we see in the future and why we're putting such an investment in journalism. number one question i get from wall street all the time is why journalism, why are you choosing when the rest of the world seems to be going away from journalism? why are you opening up a thousand patches? why did you buy the "huffington post"? and i think the things i'm about to talk about are a core essence of what we believe them. the first is really a bit of the human needs stage which is, if you woke up and today was your first day on planet earth, what would you knows and what would you see? i think there's some very stark things. one is there's four or 5 billion phones in peoples pockets and a lot of smart phone growth across the world, which means people are going to be connected full-time with information all the ti
african-americans who were living in the washington area. and they would make a big effort to impress lincoln. they could dress in their finest close. men wearing civil war, both the gray and the blue they got for battle fields. they'd line up and sing spirituals and entertainment with these spirituals. and he was so moved to tearing often that a lot of people around him thought this sort of deepened his commitment to abolition and to emancipation. just being in the presence of the african-americans had somebody slaves and talking to them. especially what became quasi religious ceremonies. he was sort of semireligious figure among freed slaves in those days. >> host: what strikes me when you go through all of the presidents and you mention them all is oscillation. you've got -- you have a lincoln and an andrew johnson. who was pretty much indifferent. he was to the plight of people of african-american descent. >> guest: yeah. the other oscillation is a class-based oscillation. you had people in the white house that served several. they could observe how people behaved towards people.
on that's really designed to do one big grand strategic thing that wherever you look in the middle east and that is to shore up the strength, the responsiveness of the state wherever we're looking, whether we're iraq or iran today or afghanistan to prevent pakistan from beginning to sell the idea of a two-state solution and they're all within this september of an international state system and we're going in the wrong direction. >> what i see on the ground and i travel often to afghanistan is to be honest with all the power of the u.s. military, you have an incredibly competent military but in the end that's not enough to substitute for the poor governance that the afghanistan paid and the institutions provide. and so we're pushing businesses to walk uphill and we never get there and i'm sure you -- it's hard to find anybody to defend president karzai's governance. >> that's true, too. but good governance brings us back to something like the democratization, something like that procedure and it's going to be their own culture -- but it's going to be something the people will have a way
remains will help us get rid of too big to fail. >> thank you. ..y much >> and what do you do with your stolen moon rocks? don't try to sell them on the internet. ben mezrich on someone who tried. sign up for booktv alert, weekend schedules in your inbox. >> next, a panel from the 2011 los angeles times festival of books titled american history: blood and back rooms. it's about an hour. >> well, first, i just want to thank you all for coming on this beautiful day to talk about american history.- it's so great to see so many his people interested, and i'm getting a heads up that i'm not being heard in the back. is it too -- i don't have a really loud voice. is that better? closer, closer? oh, i'm going to --t >> [inaudible] >> okay.er how's that? i'm not used to this. i'm from montana.hat? we don't have microphones. u [laughter] any excuse you can find. i am from montana. any excuse you can find. we know that we are not supposed to have our cellphone on. we would appreciate it if you would turn that off. no person or recordings allow. appreciate if you would follow that. how you like to
-30 years ago and think of its reputation now. think of the books that were big in the 60s and 70s, if you're old enough to have been around then, they are very different books now. herbert and marshall and the coastal superstars then, and they don't show up now. that's, i think, the first thing. the other thing is biography of a person, you dig into letters. you dig into rem innocences and -- rem remanents and so on. this was just a delightful concept when i met the other authors and they told me about who the authors are and what they write about. that gives you a sense where to take this diversity of what's going on. >> so the other two books already published in this series, one is a biography of a confession by gary wills who has, of course, wrote about this several times during his career, and then this is a biography of the book of the dead by donald lopez up at the university of michigan. each of them treats this idea in each of the three in a different way, and still and some of the books that are still to come in this series also promise to be very interesting, and vie -- vanessa
in touch with mr. watson but not mr. bryant's big and presenting your committee, "the guardian" or anyone else? >> anyone who is holding material, which clearly people are, from the amounts of media coverage, and there's been some species are you surprised any of these names that are coming out, or do know these names? for example, the gordon brown issue. >> now, i am aware of them. >> mark reckless. [inaudible] holding material because of the stories coming out, is at least another theoretical possibility as stores are being sourced from within the metropolitan police? >> i'm sorry, i don't follow your. >> could it not be the opposite, whether paid or otherwise information, rather than necessary being the place that the media outlets already have it? [inaudible] >> well, we always, we will always be accused of that. i can say with absolute confidence, because i know what's been there. for instance, when there was speculation around victims of 77 bombings, we did not know that they were contained within our material. >> thank you for the answer that i wasn't accusing. >> is a natural thin
and making us a better nation? let me introduce to you another dreamer. this is jose migana. a big smile on his face. jose brought to the united states from mexico when he was two years old. he grew up in arizona. he graduated as the valedictorian of his high school class. he enrolled in arizona state university, became the first member of his family to attend college. but then arizona passed a law prohibiting public universities from giving financial aid or in-state tuition rates to undocumented students. hundreds of students were forced to drop out of school. but jose persevered. he found his calling on the speech and debate team where he ranked fifth in the nation. and in 2008, jose migana graduated summa cum laude from arizona state university with a major in business management. jose couldn't work because of his legal status so he went to law school. next year, jose will graduate from baylor university law school in waco, texas. despite his potential to give to this country, jose will not be able to work as a lawyer because of his undocumented status. he sent me a letter and here's
while i appreciate your reassurance, it's somewhat like you said, mr. gruenberg, about the too big to fail in response to mr. corker. we're waiting for the evidence that something is different in regard to those community banks. and so in particular, i want to -- and i certainly agree with you that the fdic insurance issues that you raise, i think are a positive development. but let me particularly raise with you the disparate treatment of capital standards between community banks and large financial institutions. the definition of well capitalized seems to have a different definition in regard to whether or not you're a large or small bank. and many of our community banks are being regulated in which they are required to have a much higher percentage of capital than our smaller banks -- i'm sorry, than our larger banks many of which those larger banks are under regulatory restrictions as a result of their financial condition. so my point is there's a double standard in my view between the capital requirements that small banks, community banks are required to have and that of large
forward to reduce the deficit in a big way modeled after these bipartisan commissions, where there's been pretty good bipartisan agreeme agreement. but efforts to forge a grand compromise, bringing the deficit down by $4 trillion, have been abandoned by republican leaders over and over. i -- i have not supported every detail in these grand compromise efforts. i don't want to do anything to undermine medicare or social security or medicaid, programs that have worked for generations now and programs that millions of ohioans depend on, for middletown to ashtaboula to toledo and gallipolis. that's because i wanted a more balanced approach. i know the presiding officer did too. but as days and weeks and weeks and months go by, we're now only days away from default. we're simply running out of time. that's what the senate bill is about, protecting us from default. the spirit of continued compromise again, the majority leader has come forth with a plan to reduce the deficit by $2.2 trillion. it's truly a compromise because it meets the republicans' main criteria, it contains spending cuts to rou
a to b. >> vikrum? >> i think a big part of it is that you need to understand that social change, we don't wake up overnight and think like i'm going to change the world. just like you said that you want, or that you make this for any particular in other than for a class project. you have to realize even if you have, dream big torture. i'm sure, i didn't mean to don't wake up and think that you can't save the world. but know that that's not going to happen overnight. social change doesn't come overnight, but it does come and commitment. even by having good dialogues like this today. i know that sounds cheesy but think that's the first step because when you get those first job, i can only speak about kind of washington oriented jobs, but you might have tried we can best universities were really been the top of your class or feel that you are really, have a high aptitude and i grasp of issues but when you get there, you might feel downtrodden and say why am i not talking to the press right now about why we need a cap-and-trade legislation. realize that the change will come incrementally, b
, and i would say let's go back to basics. when you have a big problem, you go back to the basics where you have to start to solve a problem, and the basics are a budget. if we can agree on a budget, and, heck, i think we all agree that if we get one on the floor, there's going to be a lot of amendments. there's going to be a lot of amendments to a budget resolution. let's get started. let's use this week to produce a budget resolution, and let's start having the amendments about spending levels, about spending priority. that will be a way that we can start the process of determining if we can, in fact, lift the debt ceiling because there are significant cuts in the spending in this country that would show the rest of the world that is holding our debt as well as the american people who are living with this government and holding part of the debt that we're serious, that we are going to get our financial house in order, and we're going to do it with a budget resolution that cuts spending and sets priorities like every family and every business in this country are required to do, and mos
is not for light or transient reasons. it's a big, big deal when the united states government has been for months and will continue to be borrowing about 40% of every dollar we spend, running up the largest deficits the nation has ever seen. and so what the law says, that -- the law and the united states code says you should have a budget. and when you set a budget, you take all of the bills that are out there and tell them how much money they have to spend so your total amount of money at the end does not exceed a dangerous level for the c. that's whac -- for the country. that's what a budget does. and so we're going to seek and repeatedly call to this senate's attention that we got the cart before the horse. we're spending money without a budget and we're going to have to have a budget, else we are not in control of our spending. and once you have a budget, it takes 60 votes to violate the budget. you can kind of stick to it if you make up your mind to do so. and we don't have to violate it and burst the budget. so that's -- that's what we're talking about today and it's a matter of great serio
forendf yesterday calling and echoing my call to end subsidies for big oil. it is they call it received a bipartisan vote here in the bipj senate, a bipartisan majority vote here in the senate, but of course did not pass because of mar colleagues insistence on a r filibuster or a supermajority ie the.put the but it is time for our friends on the other side of the aisle put the interest of taxpayers ahead of big oil and allow these wasteful subsidies to finally end. as the president said, we have t strategies to reduce the deficit like my legislation to cut oil a subsidies thatdy are already introduced and ready to go now we have to do is pass it. a vote to allow that to happeneo is a simple choicene for everyod in this chamber. are you on the side ofn working-class families and o seniors or aren't you on theefit side of b,ig oil? saving now, they're lots of ways to cur the deficit, but saving taxpayer subsidies for big oil while anda medicare is not in my mind a solution. it makes no sense, mr. president to get a taxpayer-funded subsidb to the big five oil companies ol earning $12 billi
't particularly like bad acronym. >> it's not my favorite either. >> this is a big deal. in i don't dig it should be trivialized and i think it is one area where there is not enough done that there is not enough central administration of budget authority. >> ride, so i will stick with national intelligence manager. and, i think the challenge is that we do face a much more difficult vegetarian byram and then we did in the last few years and i fully appreciate that reality. i've seen it in my role at nsa where i have been part of the senior leadership meetings about how nsa is going to react and respond to the budget constraints that we are likely to face, that we will face. the question will be, how do we make sure that we are focusing on the right priorities as a community and how do we achieve efficiencies where we can in order to meet the challenge that the current budget environment proposes? >> well, you see, from my point of view counterterrorism is extraordinarily important. is vital to the protection of the homeland. therefore having a strategy and an approach to it and a pattern and a pra
of the big package. we think that estimate was given in 2009 and the authors of the estimate think that its low, and we are very concerned that it's going to be much higher than that and we will continue to get much higher than that. and obviously the collection the states and governments that rely on the revenue, but those folks in those little towns across the country that are trying to make a living selling to the people in their community that have an automatic six to 8% price disadvantage simply because the truck is driving out hundred and of packages is having a devastating effect on small and medium-size retailers. i get we too many telephone calls from the country that are in their view being killed by that price differential. >> he raises the point some of the leading proponents of applying the sales tax online or wal-mart and target national retailers who have also been blamed by small retailers for price pressures and that sort of thing. how would you respond to that? >> they are major proponents of this, but they are not alone. i spend a lot of time talking to the after market a
support it in a way that is reasonable and balanced. host: let me get to one other big topic and then we will start taking calls. that is the medicare debate. what do you think of paul ryan's medicare plan? guest: i think there are too few big steps and not enough baby steps. i think it is critical for us. i was willing to vote on the medicare part d which a handful of our democrats did that with president bush because i could not imagine a health-care program for seniors without prescription drugs being integrated into it. was it perfect? no. did it take the necessary steps to get us started on that discussion and debate and the evolution of a senior health care plan that had prescription drugs? yes, it did. i think that is how we have to approach medicare. a baby girl born today as a 50% chance or better of living to 100 my husband's grandmother passed away a couple of years ago one a week shy of 112 living in her own home. these are the things that we are dealing with. people are living longer. i was very engaged with care coordination, wellness, how we coordinate care for our seniors
, but it means, mr. president, that we can't be raising taxes on the job creators, and there is a big debate right now about how do we get ourselves out of this fiscal mess. i would submit to my colleagues that the real issue here is spending. if you go back to the foundation of our country, the year 1800, we were only spending 2% of our entire economic output on the government, the federal government. this year we're going to spend 24% to 25%. the historical average over the past 40 years is about 20.6%. we are dramatically higher in terms of what we are spending on our federal government as a percentage of our entire economy. to me, clearly, we don't have a revenue issue here in washington. we have a spending issue. which would suggest that we ought to get after spending, after federal spending, particularly spending that is -- is duplicative, redundant, there are so many things in the federal government that we spend money on that we need to get that waste and that -- and all those types of wasteful spending out of our spending here in washington, d.c., but we also have to focus on those
to see the quick video i promised. jfc engages a big tent of stakeholders, a big tent in shake holders because as i mentioned, a broken framework fabric of society requires as i mentioned a patchwork of everybody being brought together. not just a small group, not just one small sector, not just the military or not just the political actors but all the sectors coming together including the community, government, society, all people who need to buy into this system and be part of it and agree. and have that social contract. and the week before last, we published a case study, it's thick, a case study on jsd and tleeshsz a smaller version on our website but we tried someone who was involved walk step-by-step to paint the picture and just distill it and just a few policy recommendations. jsd, despite its name dialog is not just talking. it's not just talking and then leaving. it's really a vehicle or a means to do things that are vital to strengthening rule of law and post-conflict environment. there are a number of different things. it all has to be dependent upon the country context and
and he should have been the big man and gone on to be successful but partly he drinks too much and did not have a ph.d. which was a large wound and also self-destructive. he argued, criticized the and complained about the british. where were you when i was getting by harvard degree? canyon and a british alike and it did not go well for him. he lost his first job. he is let go. he goes on to a hugely promising job in the research department at the central bank of 10 in could have been the opportunity of a lifetime but let go because he drinks on the job and is late to work and criticizes other people all the time. one more chance with a high ranking job as a senior development officer at the tourist development corporation. sounds like mid-level bureaucracy but it was a big job and he last four years he doesn't just drink on-the-job but two months arrested for drunk driving and starts to live in as he travels developing tourism he claims the title above him as saying he is the general manager. the general manager did not like that. >> host: it is interesting you talk about these persona
to the abortion clinic. she thought it was no big deal. as she walked into the clinic, something odd happened. another girl looked at her and said all babies want to be born. she ignored her. your baby had a heart. she thought this was propaganda. your baby has fingernails. that was odd. she walked into the abortion clinic and sat down. she glanced around and couldn't help that everyone was playing with their fingernails. tapping them, she thought fingernails, i have a life growing inside of me. she walked out of the abortion clinic. that was the end of the story. let me ask you this. how many remember the statistic that you gave you about a minute and a half go? how many of you remember what prompted jane? everybody remembers. fingernails. even though of you who remember the statistic 1,465,000. they have abandoned as an emotional tool. we think that intellectual argument trumps emotion. you hear it on talk radio all the time. we have -- of all of the logical arguments, we have all of the facts on our side. they rely on emotion all the time. yeah, well, because it works. we need to start tak
city is not the first place that would come to mind to have a big as giving rank. among other reasons because nothing ever freezes there. but, this is what we did last year, and we made it to the guinness book of records. so you ask yourself, and mexican sociologists ask this question a couple of years ago. why in the world that we do this? came up with a very intelligent answer. this is the kind of competition we like. we are the only ones competing. [laughter] you can't lose if you're in the competition for the world's biggest because nobody else is doing it. nobody else is crazy enough to do this and spend time or money on it. it's not going to happen. so we love that kind of competition. the problem, of course, is that aversion to competition when it extends into antitrust policy it gets complicated. i go into the same stories. carlos. but respectful but also somewhat critical, not of his personality or persona, but of his situation which also has to do with another trait that i described, individualism. this is not often been said that not only does slim concentrate and net worth
time. so i had this big battle about whether i was going to do the english assignment, and i remember saying to her in the midst of this heated discussion i didn't see the point during these assignments. they were a waste of time. i didn't see what to do this stuff and she said to me well, okay, you are obviously a bright kid and what you decide to do is find so what are we going to do here? and i said well, it seems to me that the point of this class is one, to make sure i have an understanding of the english language and research skills and i can make a coherent argument, so why don't you testing on that? she said why don't you mean? i said have me write something. she said fine, what are you going to write? i said why not a history of riots in america. she said okay. and i went off and several weeks later come back with i don't know how long it was that like a 140 page manuscript and she takes it home, comes back the next monday and this is okay i'm going to give you an essay for the course, but i don't -- i'm not really capable of evaluating this material and i make it from the pr
up with big solutions. the 1980s, particular time is fe in the state legislature then god was happening in washington. when i was 39 years old in 1983s ronald reagan and tip of then' haida meeting at the whiten house. allegedly went something likehat this. the president says social security is going brokeep in 20 years he would discuss the report. o'neill said i agree. the president's amateur comic, t but not one to t raise tax. i't o'neill said i'm like, but i don't what to get the benefit. pick up the extras and said what you want to do quite to push th9 eligibility out to get the systematic and actuarial soundness. i was 39ing in 1983. of i would've been collecting social security at the age of 6r in 2010. are because reagan got togethert they push eligibility out by one year to reach 66, not age 65. a it goes up to messier to save 67 in a few years. the actuarial soundness for 67 years. the reason it is now in trouble again is that retracted aecurity communist difficulties thatcollo cause people come at babyci boomers to go to the bank in asw social security to collect
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 109 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)